I live in NW Florida and originally started deer hunting solely in Alabama because I had access to private land there. Slowly over the years the non-resident license has gone from $225 to $275 and it is the reason I have started to look at hunting options in Florida even though I know the deer here are not near as large as those two hours North in Alabama. I'll also be forced to hunting public land vs private land in Alabama. Rumor is this year the non-resident Alabama license could go to $300 or more and that is making it tougher and tougher to justify hunting there.

I personally do not agree with out of state tag prices when you consider how much money a hunter spends in that state on land, gas, food, hunting supplies and taxes on all those items. I believe there should be better pricing on non-resident licenses for states that border one another, whatever happened to good neighbors? In the area where I hunt there are a lot of out of state leases and the communities benefit from the influx of hunters all year long. I think these communities will lose out if the states keeping raising the non-resident licenses. I just hope the day never comes where prices increase so much that I can't hunt in my neighboring state.

I live in Wisconsin and IMPO i think Wisconsin needs to get on track with the neighboring states and up the Non-Res tag prices.. I think even if Wisconsin did raise the tag prices the non-res would still come here to hunt.

I tried to vote in that poll beut was unable to get my choice to register. Weird.

My view on this is a bit complex. In general, I think that Iowa's non-resident tags are too high at something like $400, but I am not overly concerned with that. My real issue is that non-residents who own Iowa land have no rights as landowners in spite of the fact that they pay the taxes and maintain the property (often for the benefit of neighboring hunters).

I do not think that an non-resident should ever have to enter a lottery to hunt on their own place and I think the cost of the tag should at least be offset by the property taxes they pay.

as long as the land is not federal land let em charge whatever.but federal lands were set aside by FDR so the common man would have a place to hunt and the fees for those places should be minimal

"Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person." - Fred Bear

One of the things I've noticed is the "we don't want you in our state" mindset that many people seem to use as a reason why non-residents should pay more to hunt. I'm running into this even with state officials in Missouri. Seems to me that at least with regard to whitetails there are probably plenty to go around for everyone.

For a bunch of people who are suppose to be supporting one another (hunters) we sure seem to get pretty selfish when it comes to our home states and the animals in them.

“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.” Aldo Leopold

I think that lottery systems are more of a we dont want you in our state mind set, more than the price of the tag. Prices are set to help generate money for the state and there conservation programs.... I have no problem paying for a tag becuse I set money aside for deer hunting.

But you never hear the hunters from states that have lottery systems for non residence complain...